Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120314 S ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012 • Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Nora Berko and Willis Pember. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Motion: Jay moved to approve Feb 8th and Feb. 22nd minutes; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Nora will step down on 217 E. Bleeker 202/208 E. Main Street, Historic Landmark Lot Split and Variances, Public Hearing Public Notice — Exhibit I • Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot on Main Street in the historic district. It contains two Victorian buildings which are in their original location. At some point they were under the ownership of the same person and so the lot merged together in 1970's. A later owner condominimized them so that they could be sold individually but they have common elements between them. The property owners are Salon Tuleo and Aspen Home . consignment. The applicants propose to do an historic lot split which would put the original 3,000 square foot town sites back in place. Presently there is no proposed new development but the buildings do not conform to setback requirements and with the lot line'a new variance will be created. There is a 20 square foot link between the houses and that will be demolished which enables the buildings to be free standing again. Staff is concerned about the fire codes when the lot line comes in. The eave of the Salon Tuleo will hang over the property line and the Building Dept. said they will probably want sprinkler heads underneath the eave which would provide a sheet of water if a fire would begin. Another idea might be to jog the lot line. There are numerous variances that would have to be granted. Staff recommends approval of the lot split. Sara Upton, Upton design representing Salon Tuleo. On lot lwhich is partially owned by Jake Vickery the shed roof is almost to the property line going past the five foot rear yard setback. Also on the west side of the lot the house extends over the setback. On the east side a portion 1 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012 of the house and the connector link extend past the setback but not over the property line. The existing eaves of each house are a foot apart from each other. The connector between the lots will be removed. On lot 2 on the west side the house extends to the property line itself so we would request a variance for that. That would be about 200 square feet over the setback. On the east side there is an existing airlock that is to remain and window wells and the alley shed is also encroaching. Sara said Denis Murray from the Bldg. dept. requested that eave sprinklers be installed between the two houses for the historic portions only. Nora commented that this is basically restoring it back to its pre- . condominiumization status. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Jack Vickery, co-owner of 202 E. Main said the wooden deck will be removed or the fence can go to the property line. Amy clarified that the entire property is landmarked and both cabins have ® some newer construction that already exists. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #5 as written for 202/208 E. Main Street; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. 217 E. Bleeker— Conceptual, Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances, continued public hearing Nora recused herself. Amy said we are at conceptual review with on-site relocation of the out building, demolition of a small shed and consideration of a FAR bonus, setback variances and a residential design variance. Since the last couple of meetings staff has been in support of the design of the house and we don't believe that is the major issue at this point and we will focus on the alley. The applicant is providing four illustration options. It is a 45 foot wide lot created through a lot split. The barn is 14 feet wide and you don't have a lot • of room to accommodate parking. Two parking spaces are required on the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012 site whether in the garage or on the surface. The issue is how to preserve the out building, how should it be located. Staff supports locating the barn toward the east. It is directly back where it originally sat on the property and it is oriented in the original way that it sat on the property. As a one story building it is reasonably sympathetic to the Victorian next door. All the construction on the east property line is one story. Staff supports option two because it is the most functional and it places the out building toward the east and it requires a 21/2 foot setback on the east and a 9 foot variance on the alley. It also gives some breathing room between the out building and the garage structure. The applicant is proposing to restore the barn exactly as it was. Windows that were boarded up will be opened back in. Staff feels the bonus is worthy. There are only about 20 buildings left in town like • this. Karen Kribs, owner of the vacant lot at 217 E. Bleeker Karen said her intent is to renovate the building and build a single family home. Four options will be presented and the front elevation is the same for all four proposals. ® Karen presented a power point showing different buildings in the alleys. In the alley we have lots of buildings that violate setback requirements. Some buildings are more in the alley and violate the setback requirements. Some buildings are also on property lines. The chaotic placement of these alley buildings is a theme all over the West End. The condition of the alley buildings is sad. Sadly most of them are storage sheds. The renovation will be a huge undertaking and expensive. Mine is a larger alley building and most are facing north south streets and are being used as garages. The alleys that have garages in them tend to be neat and organized. In Chapter 14 of the design guidelines it says parking should be at the rear of the site and the visual impacts minimized. If the parking is going on in the garage the visual impact is eliminated. You have cars and trucks wedged in along the alleys. The barn would be a clean restoration that honors a'building with a unique history; first a home, then a barn and then an outhouse and then a shed and now a building fit for occupancy. On the north elevation of the barn the door is existing and is in terrible condition and probably not salvageable. We would like glazing in the upper portion of the door that replaces it. There was also a window and we would like to replace that. The east side would stay as is. The land use code indicates reuse of the building which we plan to do. The barn will be an 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012 • office and it will contribute to the alley scale. The distance of the barn is 24.4 feet and that is a long distance without light. I will restore the barn back to its original state but would like a proposal to lighten it up. Option lrelocates the barn in the southwest corner of the property. The plan requires a 2.6 variance on the west side and no setback variance on the east and the 9 foot variance which requires the placement of the building on the alley. There are two fences on the east side of the property line. Do to the overwhelming objections to the west side yard variance I am withdrawing my option. The owner on the west (Hayes) has complained that the house is massed toward the west side. This is true and done out of necessity to be considerate of the small Victorian on the east side. We wanted to get the mass behind the tree in front. Title 26, part 415 speaks to the availability of setback variances for Historic Landmark lot Split Lots and it indicates that the HPC can grant variances. Option 2 has the barn on the east side. This plan requires no variance on the west side and a 2.6 on the east side and the same 9 foot rear variance along the south property line to accommodate the historic accessory building. No ® other variances would be required and there would be a two car garage. The space between the garage and accessory unit is three feet. This is the only option that has a passage to the garage which is a benefit to me and the neighbors. Option 3 requires the same setback variances as we just went through; none on the west and two and a half on the east and 9 feet on the rear. This plan shows a one car garage and the separation of the historic building and the south east corner of the garage is minimal. There is room for one legal parking space along the side of historic building. With this parking spot the view of the barn be obstructed. The foot print is not as simple and there is a jog and this plan is more complicated. Option 4 has the barn in the south east corner of the property. It does not require any variances on the west or the east and the same 9 feet on the alley. This plan shows a one car garage. This would require parallel parking along the alley and I would have to approach from the west side and pull up beyond the historic building and then back in. With the advice of counsel I am withdrawing this option. Exhibit I—Public notice 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012 • Exhibit II — Ord. 34, 2005 Exhibit III — land use code section Karen said she understands why the board takes public comment; however, in this case it is a complicated and unusual conflict. Karen said she would have preferred to work the situation out privately instead of a public forum. The land use code enumerates the availability of setback variances as one of the benefits of creating a lot split. Since each of the parcels contains an historic structure each receives the same benefits including development. These benefits have real economic value and they present the opportunity for the home owner to use a bit more of the lot for development than would be allowed on a normal lot. The creation of the lot split initiated by the Gettman family to their financial benefit enabled the setback variances to begin with. One of the parcels was sold to me and it comes with the benefits that were awarded to the parcel through the lot split process. Now Lee and his family want to block my request to use those benefits. Every square foot of the lot counts particularly on mine where I have a tree to deal with. I feel the Gettman's are denying me the use of the benefits that came with my lot. In the spirit of compromise and in trying to move forward I have trimmed a ® little more off my plans. We are asking for a 2.6 side yard setback. This is the third time we are compromising. This respects the interest of my neighbors and provides good visibility of the historic resource. Option #2 is my preferred plan. It keeps the alley neater by housing both the cars. With the cars hidden you can see the historic barn. Ann asked Amy if the shed stayed in its existing location would you have to worry about setbacks. Amy said when any major development of the site occurs Engineering will require that it be pulled onto private property. Jay asked if most lost splits include language about setbacks. Amy said the 9,000 square foot parcel has been a landmark since the 80's and has always been eligible for variances. Lots of times when you do a lot split you are carving off totally vacant yard space and HPC cannot give any setback variances in that condition because there are no obstacles. You shouldn't have a problem developing it. Here there are historic structures on 111) both parcels and both eligible for HPC incentives. 5 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012 Jim said applicants do not have rights for setbacks. HPC has the authority to give a variance. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Mary Hayes: I live on the west side. I am overwhelmed by the mass of the building and it will block our view, the sun and the snow coming off the shed is a concern. Snow piles up five feet off the shed and of course now it will be shifted. I don't know how much snow will come onto my property and break our fence. I need the five foot setback. When we bought our house the roses that are on both properties were there. We have always shared them with the Gettman's. I think they can be left alone on my side if they don't dig right up to the property line. Lee Gettman, neighbor: I also would like to see the five foot setback. There is not enough room to do maintenance or snow removal on the building. If we want to build a fence in the future it would limit that due to the constraints of the power box on the other side and we are already down to 35 feet in the back of our lot. This week I have watched the snow slide off the 410 building. It shoots off the end. We would like to see enough space for the building to be maintained. I don't think 2.6 feet does that especially with the eave. I don't see where a fence and a building takes precedence over people. The same thing for parking. The guidelines for safety should take precedence over that second driveway. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing. Jamie said the two options that she would prefer were taken off the table. With regard to option two and three, I still have a hard time with putting undo maintenance snow removal issues on the neighbors. I would have liked to discuss option one and four a little more. Jay said he preferred option one and four. You are basically asking for the same thing that you presented at the last meeting that wasn't supported. Option one is by far the best solution. Ann said it was clear at the last meeting that several members would not accept anything but the required setback. We are here to protect the historic resource but also respect the neighbor's issues in this case. On the one hand it would nice if the neighbors would be a little more flexible because you 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012 • may be asking for variances when you redevelop your property but you made it clear that the five foot setback is important. It would have been great if you came to us and asked for a variance in parking and just provide one parking space on site instead of asking for setbacks. I can't support option two or three. Willis said he is mystified why you would submit four options and then take two off the table. Willis pointed out that he is not adverse to variances. Both neighbors benefit by having your tree yet you are the one that has to suffer the consequences and make the house work. Maybe the neighbors should be a little more accommodating for a variance and which side would the variance be utilized best. Option #2 would have a wall toward the Hayes's house. Willis said he would support Option #1. In terms of how the three homes work together option #1 is the best solution. Jamie said option #1 we talked about at the last meeting because you kept the resource in a very similar location. You are increasing the distance from the property line and the historic resource and right now the historic resource is over the property line. You are granting the neighbor to the west more • space. The concern of option #1 is how do you deal with the snow. Option #4 I liked because you didn't need any variances. Jay said you have to fit all the square footage in a small envelope because the tree is there. Ann said option #1 seems to be a good compromise in terms of the setbacks and what the applicant is trying to do. It is an improvement over what is existing. Ann asked the applicant if they would consider option #1. Amy said there was a strong reaction from the Hayes family about the west side so option #1 was taken off. I received four letters in four days. We are trying to figure out something that addresses all the issues at hand. Karen said she would be happy with option #1. She took it off to accommodate her neighbor. Jay said he cannot support option 2 or 3. Ann asked about flipping option #4. Karen said she hasn't looked at that but • is willing to review it. ° ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012 • Karen said she is willing to look at option #1. Jay pointed out that he didn't support a setback in November. Mary said there would only be 2 'A feet and she can't get the snow off. • Karen said everything there on the barn won't be kept. The lean-two portion will be removed. The barn is 14 feet wide. Right now I am pulling snow off of 18 feet of roof and when the lean-two portion is gone there won't be that much snow shed because it will be shedding off 7 feet of roof. I feel the snow will take care of itself. Willis suggested Karen talk to a roofing consultant to weigh in on the snow. Jay said we are talking about crowding exactly what we are trying to protect. We are trying to protect the resource that is there. In my opinion if we protect the five foot setback we are also protecting the other side of five feet. If you give up 2 .6 feet now you will be giving it up later. • Jamie said she would be supportive of option #4 but the applicant said #4 is not viable. I am more in favor of option #1 because it keeps the historic barn in its current location and moves it away from the property line 2.6 feet. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve option #1 as is with the variances we have talked about and with the house design that we talked about. If the historic resource is rebuilt as is not including new windows I would be in favor of the 250 square foot bonus. Motion second by Ann. Ann said with the plan they can restore the two windows on the east elevation. Willis said when we get so many options it makes us get creative. My idea is to give 15 inches on one side and 15 inches on the other side. That way it is equal to both neighbors. Jamie said 15 inches for the historic shed and 15 inches only for the garage. • Jay said that recommendation make sense. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2012 ® Amended motion: Jamie amended the motion to grant a 15 inch setback on both sides; second by Ann. Roll call vote on the motion and amended motion: Jay, no; Willis, yes; Ann, yes; Jamie, yes. Motion carried 3-1. Motion: Ann moved to adjourn, second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p. . Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk • 9