Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120222 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin and Jamie McLeod. Staff present Jim True, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Nora will excuse herself on 217 E. Bleeker Nora honored Ramona Markalunas and her contributions to historic preservation. Willis said he will forward an editorial that will be useful for the commission members. The name is Preservation Nation. 610 W. Hallam — Project Monitoring outdoor lighting Exhibit I — photo of post Amy explained that the applicant expanded the deck a few years ago. They went through tlir project and came for a CO and it was discovered that there were light fixtures on the front that were never approved and they had been installed and overlooked. The applicant was told that the fixtures didn't meet the design guidelines and they had to remove them. This triggered the discussion of lighting the pathway to the house. We talked about low lighting and we ended up allowing two cans in the soffit of the front porch. They are still looking for a landscape type fixture. They are asking HPC to approve a post and Aim and I didn't feel we could approve this. David Dorr from Olson Construction David said the property owner's main concern is the front entry being under lit. There is a large area light well adjacent to it and they feel it might be a life safety concern because the light well is un-railed. The house has been altered so much since its original construction date. We are proposing a wooden post with a light fixture. The light well is not covered. It is a six foot drop with a bench and then another four foot drop. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Nora asked about the cans that were approved. Amy said they are on the underside of the porch. David said the cans are OK when you are on the porch but the owners want more lighting. There are numerous examples of lamp posts in the West End. Jamie inquired about the size of the fixture. David said it would be around 10x18 inches. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis said the situation suggests a contemporary solution to a problem that is necessary. Because of the way it is shown in the photograph it is unobtrusive and I would suggest something that shields the light source entirely. Jay said he doesn't support it and his concern is the light spilling onto the historic portion of the façade and it is not typically what we would see. I would suggest a solution that doesn't light the façade of the home. Ann said the post is appropriate but as a suggestion have a fixture with more down lighting. In looking at the picture there is a need for additional lighting. Jay said he would support the post and not the fixture and let staff and monitor work out the fixture. Willis commented that he likes the three foot representation in the photograph. Jamie commented that the rendering looks a little small and a five foot post is a little large in context. I would like to see a fixture pointing down into the walkway and not outward. Nora echoed that she would like to see the post shorter and have the light go downward. Ann said the board is in consensus that the post should be shorter than five feet and use a down light. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012 David said the owners are a little older and they are concerned when their friends walk over an icy sidewalk. I am sure they will be willing to work with staff on the design. Willis said he would support more than one post on the walkway if it was felt necessary. MOTION: Jay moved to approve 610 W. Hallam outdoor lighting with no more than a three foot tall post and a down lighting fixture to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 5-0. Ann will be the monitor. 217 E. Bleeker— Conceptual, Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances, continued public hearing Amy said we are at conceptual and there was a specific FAR assigned and there is a large tree and an historic structure in the back. At the last meeting the house design had improved and was in character with the guidelines but the focus turned back to the shed because of the adjacent family having concerns that it was too close to their common property line. I am focusing on the shed tonight. Staff finds that the new house meets the conceptual guidelines and at final we will talk about materials and lighting. Karen has proposed two alternatives that she feels are workable for the shed to provide relief off the common property line. One version pulls it another foot further so it is two feet from the east lot line. The alternative comes three feet from the property line and requires the garage to be pushed into the west side yard setback which would require a variance. Staff feels the first alternative is the best compromise. There has been a lot of commentary about not wanting to give side yard setback variances with the new house itself. Hopefully we can work out something with this complicated project. Karen Kribs, owner Karen went over the elevations where square footage was taken out of the top floor and moved to the bottom. The patio was also reduced in size. The site has a lot of constraints including the Victorian next door, a large tree and an accessory dwelling. Karen did a power point of the overview of the project including the solar panels that will be installed in the roof. Mostly we have heard positive comments about the house. The focus is on the 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012 accessory dwelling tonight. We have as is elevations and proposed elevations of the restoration. This building was a barn and at one time it was a house and we intend to turn the structure back into a dwelling structure but it won't be livable. It will be my office. On the east elevation it will face the neighbor at 227, the Gettman property. Right now there is a door and window which will stay the same. We are going to ask for a small window on the west elevation of the shed. The siding on the lean to is OK. The door will also remain. We are trying to keep this as close to the original as we can and it needs to be functional and light enough. We have examined the inside and the existing door cannot be saved. On the north elevation we would like a door with a light panel on top and we would restore the window that existed before. Staff and some of the members have suggested that the 250 square foot bonus rests on the restoration of the building. The guidelines were addressed and how the project complies with them. The bonus can be granted when restoring an out building which is happening. The accessory building actually chews up more than the 250 square foot bonus that we are asking for. It is over 340 square feet. On the location, the site plan that was submitted in November shows the building a foot off the property line and we didn't have negative comments from the panel and I hadn't heard anything from anyone in the neighborhood until a couple of weeks ago so I really thought this was settled. I did go back and tried to figure out a compromise without drastically changing the proposal. In the proposal the barn would be moved over one more foot and we would maintain the three foot separation between the accessory building and the garage. This is the proposal that we would like to do in order to not ask for an additional setback on the other side. The second proposal would require a one foot variance for a west side yard setback and this would move the barn over two more feet rather than one foot. I understand that Lee Gettman has concerns about snow falling onto his property and this would give a little more space for the snow to fall. It is a compromise. I am struggling for a garage and this is a retirement home for my husband and I. The garage is important to us. We have pushed the garage up to give visibility to the barn. We have given up a lot and we gave up the covered patio off the bedroom. We have also given up an open stairwell and we have given up 60 to 70% of the side patio. We are really trying to compromise and be flexible. There are a number of historic lot splits where two car garages have been approved. I feel we have compromised a lot of things and I hope you will find a way to compromise on this one. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012 Jay asked about the procedures regarding noticing for the setbacks. Amy said option one does not require any different noticing and option two would require noticing at final and we certainly have done that before. If you don't award it at final she will have to redesign to not require the variance. You can't award a variance that has not been noticed for but you can give direction. Willis explained that he is a little disappointed in the change of vocabulary from the first meeting. There was nothing at that meeting to direct a change in the vocabulary that was presented. Why the change from the initial to the one here now. Jamie said the style represented by Gretchen was unique vs. the style presented by the new architect. Karen said the first presentation wasn't succeeding so we tried another design. I am continually trying to improve the design and make the house a more attractive house. This house is much more attractive than the house that was submitted in November. Jamie clarified on the historic shed you are looking at adding two windows. Karen said we are restoring a window that was formally there on the north elevation and the one on the west is added. Jamie said the north elevation faces the house and the west elevation faces the garage. Karen clarified the setbacks. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Lee Gettman, neighbor at 227 E. Bleeker which is east of 217 E. Bleeker. Lee said they recognize the applicant's right to build and we appreciate the efforts of staff, architects and Karen to address our concerns. After discussing this with our family we will be disappointed with anything less than five feet. It seems like it is a standard guideline and is there for a reason. By maintaining the five foot setback is the only way that we can keep all of our options open for the future. The safety concerns of the snow sliding and fire would be compromised. The maintenance of the building 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012 will not be possible with the two foot option. We do understand that there are constraints on the lot and everything that is there was there before the purchase. Everything that is being asked for is arbitrary. We appreciate everything that you have done to address the concerns that we have. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Ann asked for comments on the house and restoration of the shed and variances. Jamie commented that she appreciates Karen's efforts and the fact that she has been through a lot with the board. In regards to the shed because you are completely restoring it I would be in favor of adding the additional window and restoring the other window. Because of the extent of restoration I would look at the 250 square foot bonus. My biggest concern is the location and it always has been. I look at these property lines and setbacks to help protect you from your neighbor and your neighbor from you. If your neighbor didn't come in and have concerns about it we would have most likely granted at least something that was three feet off the property line or two feet off the property line although two feet would be difficult. I wouldn't want someone building two feet from my property line. I also have difficulty granting an easement on the other side of the building without having proper noticing. Amy is absolutely right that this board does not typically grant variances for a new house. My biggest hang up is the location of the shed. I still don't feel the two proposals are a big enough compromise and there are other design alternatives that you can look at with your architect. With conceptual I would not be able to approve this with the location of the shed. Ann said in terms of the 250 square foot bonus I would grant that if the only windows added to the shed were windows that had been there previously. On the alley all the sheds are out of compliance. I would support the two foot variance on the east side and consider the one foot on the west so that the shed becomes very visible from the alley (option two). It's a compromise and the public noticing is a risk. Jay said the neighbor's concerns are important. I believe the barn should be on the setback line. Regarding the 250 square foot bonus I would support that by restoring the barn to its original punched openings. We would have to go with what we find when it is opened up. I wouldn't support the new window on the west. The restoration of the building back to its original is 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012 worth the 250 square foot bonus. The public notice for the other side is a big gamble but I would give you that gamble. The barn has to come to the setback line on the east side. Willis said the framed enlarged windows have been blocked in overtime and then replaced with smaller windows. Have you explored going back to the original window frames and enlarging the frames with new larger windows instead of having a blocked in approach to the windows particularly in light of adding a new window where there wasn't one. Amy said all of the windows and doors can be reopened and we should probably spend some time on the site to make sure we are doing something accurate. Willis said to make a workable office that would be the obvious thing to look at. Karen asked if Willis is suggesting we put in windows in bigger than the prior windows. Willis said just fill up the existing frame. Windows over time in the barn got smaller in the existing openings. Karen said she expects that a large window existed at one time and she can restore that window. Willis commented that it would make for a better working environment. With regard to the site the constraints are enormous. I would favor option one with the FAR bonus. I am fine with the site of option one and the public benefit and the reading of the historic resource out weights the concerns of the neighbors in this case given that sheds that remain in the alleys are off and on property lines and have not been re-sited as a result of going though any kind of land use approvals. In terms of mass and scale I feel I have been left out of the loop not being at the last hearing and it sounds like there was a lot of discussion. In terms of mass and scale it is fine. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #5 as written with the condition that the 250 square foot FAR bonus is approved on the condition that the barn is restored to its original condition including fenestration. The 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012 second condition would be that the site plan approve option #1. Motion second by Willis. Discussion: Ann commented that the applicant is restoring the barn and the pattern of the outbuildings throughout town is that they are inside and outside setbacks. It maybe that the neighbors on either side will have to ask for variances when they want to do some improvements on their houses. Jay said he feels it is not appropriate to burden the neighbors with her request. Lee has come here twice and now this motion is for two feet off and it will create a burden on the neighbor's property. This is not saving this house or structure, it is restoring it and it is already protected. What I would like to protect is the whole alley scape. Option two would give it another foot away but creates other problems. The property was bought as is and there were no secrets. I don't want to pick up the barn and move it around and create an ability to strangle it again and I think that is what we are doing by putting it over the setback. I would support moving it over to the five foot setback. You are "paving a road" to crowd the house on the east side. Jamie said she is also having a hard time supporting option #1. Why not leave the shed in its existing location or rotating it in its existing location. You have to move it no matter what because it is over your property line. If you moved it a foot and rotated it I would be more amenable than moving it across the lot affecting a neighbor that was never affected by the shed before. Vote: Jamie, no; Willis, yes; Jay, no; Ann, yes. A two-two vote is a failed action. MOTION: Jay made the motion to deny the application. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Ann moved to continue the application of 217 E. Bleeker and restudy the setback. There are two commissioners adamant about the five foot setback and the applicant should take that seriously. Ann withdrew her motion. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the conceptual application for 217 E. Bleeker, resolution #5 with the preference of a three foot setback (site plan 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012 #2) on the east side. To restore the resource to the original openings. Motion second by Ann. Discussion: Jamie said if we ignore the concerns of the neighbor I think it is setting a precedence for neighbors not coming in to speak. I feel the shed should be in the area that it is in now. I would ask the applicant to restudy this and possibly look at a variance of one foot on each side that was properly noticed vs. not noticed at all. I have a hard time granting a two foot variance on the barn in a new location. Jay said if the applicant was forced to bring it into conformity in some way on the south east corner of the lot it would alleviate some pressure from the neighbor because it is over the property line. This project is completely doable within the setbacks. We need to protect this resource and let the project grow around it. Vote: Willis, yes; Jay, no; Jamie, no; Ann, no Motion failed 3-1. MOTION: Ann made the motion to continue 217 E. Bleeker until March 14th; second by Jamie. Vote: Willis, yes; Jay, no; Ann, yes; Jamie, yes; Motion carried 3-1 Work sessions — 325 Park and 204 S. Galena — no minutes - recording Jim True, City Attorney said work sessions are design to get guidance from the HPC. The applicant cannot rely on anything that is said by the commission as a whole or by an individual commissioner. There is nothing that can be stated up front that you can rely formally on. You are trying to get impressions and input and you need to understand that work sessions are not for making final determinations. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. M of g adjourned at 7:00 pm. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9